Re: automake/535: Extract correct man section from files in MAN_MANS
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Attached is a small patch (current git) correcting this problem. @@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ if %?NOTRANS_MANS% ## Extract all items from notrans_man_MANS that should go in this section. ## This must be done dynamically to support conditionals. ?HAVE_NOTRANS? l2='%NOTRANS_LIST%'; for i in $$l2; do \ -## Accept files like `foo.1c'. -?HAVE_NOTRANS? case $$i in *.%SECTION%*) echo $$i;; esac; \ +## Accept for `man1' files like `foo.1c' but not `sub.1/foo.2' or `foo-2.1.4'. +?HAVE_NOTRANS? case `echo $$i | sed -e 's,.*\.,,'` in %SECTION%*) echo $$i;; esac; \ ?HAVE_NOTRANS? done; \ ## Extract basename of manpage, change the extension if needed. } | while read p; do \ This has the disadvantage that we're now again forking at least twice per installed file. The point of the install rule changes in master was to make them faster! :-) I don't know a good way to fix this without adding any forks at all, but the patch below fixes the issue for master with adding two forks per set of man pages installed. It uses the same regex for matching the section as is used in automake.in. Hallo Ralf, actually, I never thought about that aspect. I think there is a way to reduce the number of forks, replacing the two loops by one such that one could extract ext rather early and reuse it later on. However, this would be major surgery and require extensive testing. The idea is roughly this, e.g., for the install-man1 target: dot_seen=no for i in $(man1_MANS) . $(man_MANS); do if test x$i = x.; then dot_seen=yes continue fi ext=`echo $i | sed -e 's/^.*\\.//'` case $ext in 1*) ;; *) if test $dot_seen = yes; then continue else ext=1 fi ;; esac [proceed as now, reusing the ext extracted above] done Could also be 'dot_seen=false', 'dot_seen=:', and 'if $dot_seen; then'. This is for branch-1-10. Perhaps something analogous can be done for the new scheme in git master (just updated my local copy, still have to study it). Comments? +# Let's play with $DESTDIR too, it shouldn't hurt. +./configure --prefix='' --mandir=/man Let's just omit --prefix here, rather than passing an empty one. Also, let's add a 'make uninstall' as well as the notrans man pages, so all changed code paths are exercised; and rename a bit, so we can better test that no wrong directories are created. Shall I try to do that, or will you (knowing better exactly what you have in mind)? Regards, Peter Breitenlohner p...@mppmu.mpg.de
Re: automake/535: Extract correct man section from files in MAN_MANS
Hello Peter, * Peter Breitenlohner wrote on Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 04:56:10PM CET: On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: I don't know a good way to fix this without adding any forks at all, but the patch below fixes the issue for master with adding two forks per set of man pages installed. It uses the same regex for matching the section as is used in automake.in. I think there is a way to reduce the number of forks, replacing the two loops by one such that one could extract ext rather early and reuse it later on. However, this would be major surgery and require extensive testing. Let's not go this way. The current git master version works well in this regard, with less than a dozen forks per 40 manpages that go in the same directory, of those typically only one or two `install' commands (which are by far the most expensive of them). This is for branch-1-10. Perhaps something analogous can be done for the new scheme in git master (just updated my local copy, still have to study it). Comments? Well, your scheme still forks once per file, when computing $ext. Don't worry about it, I'm not interested in making branch-1-10 faster, all that work has gone into git master already and will be in 1.11. +# Let's play with $DESTDIR too, it shouldn't hurt. +./configure --prefix='' --mandir=/man Let's just omit --prefix here, rather than passing an empty one. Also, let's add a 'make uninstall' as well as the notrans man pages, so all changed code paths are exercised; and rename a bit, so we can better test that no wrong directories are created. Shall I try to do that, or will you (knowing better exactly what you have in mind)? Erm, I've already done all that in the patch that I posted; and I have applied to master. So there is nothing left to do on this topic, except to argue (if you want) that this should be fixed in branch-1-10. :-) Cheers, Ralf
Improve `make -n dist' and `make -n distcheck' for GNU make.
I noticed that `make -n dist' touches the build tree, in that it creates directories $(distdir) and below. Also, `make -n distcheck' bails out with some error due to missing directories. (BTW, I'm unsure whether this has been reported before; if yes, speak up and I'll thank ya!) This happens because, even in the presence of `-n', GNU (and Solaris) make executes rule commands that contain the string `$(MAKE)'. This is all Good[tm] in general, but it means that we should separate commands that change files from those that only recurse, and where not possible (distcheck), ensure to bail out early and cleanly. This patch fixes these issues. The second test is mostly identical to the first one, except that it ensures that GNU make produces sufficient output. One more patch to improve things for some BSD make versions coming up. I'm not sure whether rule commands prefixed by `+' are portable enough or desirable in Automake-provided rules; they have never been used so far. So I might want to avoid using it for now. Pushed to master; I thought about branch-1-10, too, as the patch does not seem all that intrusive, but master has seen other necessary fixes, most notably 4a6593e3b (Fix the distdir target to cope with spaces in absolute file names). Cheers, Ralf Improve `make -n dist' and `make -n distcheck' for GNU make. Ensure that `make -n dist' and `make -n distcheck' do not change files, due to GNU make executing rules containing `$(MAKE)'. * lib/am/distdir.am (distdir): Separate the creation of `$(distdir)/$$subdir' for `$(DIST_SUBDIRS)' and the recursion into the `$(DIST_SUBDIRS)' in two separate rule commands. (distcheck): Exit recursive rule early when run with `make -n', as detected by a witness file. * tests/maken.test, tests/maken2.test: New tests. * tests/Makefile.am: Update. * NEWS: Update. diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS index 6fcc1a5..d4b59e9 100644 --- a/NEWS +++ b/NEWS @@ -170,6 +170,9 @@ Bugs fixed in 1.10a: containing the error message, but exit successfully. However, `make dist' will ensure that no such bogus man pages are packaged into a tarball. + - Targets provided by automake behave better with `make -n', in that they +take care not to create files. + * Bugs introduced by 1.10: - Fix output of dummy dependency files in presence of post-processed diff --git a/lib/am/distdir.am b/lib/am/distdir.am index 5acfa49..ad5e771 100644 --- a/lib/am/distdir.am +++ b/lib/am/distdir.am @@ -220,12 +220,18 @@ endif %?TOPDIR_P% ## directory, then we use `distdir' instead of `top_distdir'; this lets ## us work correctly with an enclosing package. ## +## Split the loop for the directory creation and the one for recursion, +## so that with GNU make -n, only the latter is executed. if %?SUBDIRS% @list='$(DIST_SUBDIRS)'; for subdir in $$list; do \ if test $$subdir = .; then :; else \ test -d $(distdir)/$$subdir \ || $(MKDIR_P) $(distdir)/$$subdir \ || exit 1; \ + fi; \ + done + @list='$(DIST_SUBDIRS)'; for subdir in $$list; do \ + if test $$subdir = .; then :; else \ dir1=$$subdir; dir2=$(distdir)/$$subdir; \ $(am__relativize); \ new_distdir=$$reldir; \ @@ -418,6 +424,12 @@ distcheck: dist mkdir $(distdir)/_inst ## Undo the write access. chmod a-w $(distdir) +## With GNU make, the following command will be executed even with `make -n', +## due to the presence of `$(MAKE)'. That is normally all well (and `$(MAKE)' +## is necessary for things like parallel distcheck), but here we don't want +## execution. To avoid MAKEFLAGS parsing hassles, use a witness file that a +## non-`-n' run would have just created. + test -d $(distdir)/_build || exit 0; \ ## Compute the absolute path of `_inst'. Strip any leading DOS drive ## to allow DESTDIR installations. Otherwise $(DESTDIR)$(prefix) would ## expand to c:/temp/am-dc-5668/c:/src/package/package-1.0/_inst. diff --git a/tests/Makefile.am b/tests/Makefile.am index d4687f4..15e8e61 100644 --- a/tests/Makefile.am +++ b/tests/Makefile.am @@ -393,6 +393,8 @@ lzma.test \ maintclean.test \ make.test \ makej.test \ +maken.test \ +maken2.test \ makevars.test \ man.test \ man2.test \ diff --git a/tests/maken.test b/tests/maken.test new file mode 100755 index 000..8219ec6 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/maken.test @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +#! /bin/sh +# Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +# +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by +# the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) +# any later version. +# +# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +# GNU General Public
substitute datadir in python script
Hi all,
I'm developing an application with mixed C++ and python.
I wonder how to do the following:
let's assume alib.la is a python extention library installed in
$(pyexecdir) which depends on the prefix given by the user.
Up to now, I was substituting the absolute directories path at install
time using sed on my scripts source files, so adding to Makefile.am:
ascript.py: ascript_src.py
sed -e
s#sys.append('pyexecdir')#sys.append('$(pyexecdir)')#g;s#datadir#
$(datadir)/@PACKAGE@/#g ascript_src.py ascript.py
substituting pyexecdir in order to allow import alib in the
installed scripts and datadir to allow access to the installed data
files (like images).
This solution feels a bit clumsy because I need the file names
ascript_src.py and ascript.py to deferenciate the original and the
substituted files.
I think I need an equivalent in python of the config.h header file,
but where to install it? Or is there a standard way to achieve the
substitutions?
Thanks!
automake less verbose branch
Hello Jan, all, I've worked a bit on the less verbose automake stuff, and put the result up as a branch in the git repository: git clone git://git.savannah.gnu.org/automake.git git branch je-silent origin/je-silent-am It would be *great* if you (or whoever wants to) could test it, play around with it, use it on various packages, and ideally also on different systems and make implementations if possible. Every bit helps. I won't promise that this branch will never be rewound, but I sure hope to be able to soon finish the other open topics, and then merge them for an 1.11 alpha. Detailed patch descriptions will follow on automake-patches, not sure if today, though. Please discuss/send patches on the -patches list. Thanks, Ralf
Re: automake less verbose branch
On Saturday 2009-03-07 16:16, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Jan, all,
I've worked a bit on the less verbose automake stuff, and put the result
up as a branch in the git repository:
git clone git://git.savannah.gnu.org/automake.git
git branch je-silent origin/je-silent-am
origin/je-silent
It would be *great* if you (or whoever wants to) could test it, play
around with it, use it on various packages, and ideally also on
different systems and make implementations if possible. Every bit
helps.
I am missing the definition of am__v_GEN in the generated Makefile
that is designed for use with manual rules. Like,
# -*- Makefile -*-
man8_MANS = foo.8
foo.8: foo.8.in
${am__v_GEN}man -l foo.8.in $@
